seerr_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does flag several operations as 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance', which is important behavioral disclosure. However, it lacks other details like prerequisites, session behavior, or error conditions for read operations, making the transparency partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized as a bulleted list with a clear general instruction up front. It is somewhat lengthy but each bullet serves to name an operation and its effect. The repeated 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' is redundant, but overall structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While an output schema exists, the tool has 10 distinct operations with varying parameters. The description gives only a one-line summary for each, lacking enough detail for an agent to construct correct arguments (e.g., the JSON body for login or password reset). It is insufficient for confident invocation without external API knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the arguments object, but the description adds value by listing operation-specific parameter signatures (e.g., body={}, secret, guid). It does not explain the internal structure of 'body' or what fields are required, so semantics remain incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'seerr auth operations on Seerr' and then enumerates each operation with a specific verb and target (e.g., 'Authenticate with Quick Connect', 'Get logged-in user'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on settings, users, or media.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a general instruction to 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters', and lists the available operations. However, it does not offer guidance on when to choose one operation over another (e.g., Jellyfin vs. Plex login) or when to use this tool instead of another sibling. Usage is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.